The Weekly Reflektion 03/2025
Sustainability has become a guiding principle for politicians, industry, NGOs and other organisations. Sustainability starts with the premise that resources are finite and should be used conservatively and wisely with a view to long-term priorities and consequences. Many claim that sustainability is important in the context of our children and our grandchildren, and the world we will leave them. Sustainability is also used to promote an impression that we are acting responsibly in our quest to solve the worlds’challenges. While we may buy into the principle, we should be sceptical. History has many examples of a noble cause, knowingly or unknowingly, undermining good safety principles and ending in disaster.
How do you react when you hear the word ‘sustainability’?
Whenever you hear the word sustainable, then your first reaction should be, ‘safety is about to be compromised’. Why, because we have so many examples of the drive for some sort of sustainability as a factor in Major Accidents. Sustainable is used in many contexts, for example, reduction in emissions to ‘sustain’ a stable climate, protection of ecosystems to ‘sustain’ nature, reduction in costs to ‘sustain’ the commerciality of a business. Sustainability almost implies that we have a moral duty to contribute and that not achieving the ‘sustainable’ goals and objectives will be a stain on our characters and a black mark against our generation.
We are familiar with efforts made to ensure an economically sustainable business, for example in BPs refinery and marketing division before the explosion at the Texas City refinery in 2005. Reduction in costs and failure to invest in process safety systems were key factors that led to the disaster and the 15 people that died. We know about the drive for Boeing to maintain a sustainable low emission short to medium range aircraft before the 737 Max crashes in 2019 and 2020 that killed 346 people. Attention in Boeing was diverted away from the ‘duty of care’ responsibility to poorly managed changes and deception, with tragic consequences. One of the drivers for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower was installation of insulation and cladding to improve heat conservation and help the UK achieve emission targets. This insulation and cladding were combustible and the main reason for the fire escalation that killed 72 people 14th June 2017.
At the IChemE Hazards 34 conference in Manchester a representative from the Health and Safety Executive gave a presentation on New Technologies, Developments and Energy Transition. He talked about utilisation of hydrogen in the UK as part of the drive to reduce emissions of Greenhouse Gases. One of the initiatives mentioned was injection of hydrogen into the existing natural gas network. A member of the audience asked whether this was in line with the inherently safer principles the Institution of Chemical Engineers promote. A very valid point. It was also mentioned that the trials on injection of hydrogen had originally been planned without consultation with the people living in the area that used the natural gas in their homes. While the HSE representative did not endorse this approach, he did talk about addressing the challenge of risk tolerability. Was he implying that the local community must tolerate a higher level of risk?
The HSE representative was asked whether the HSE has a view on whether hydrogen in the natural gas network is ‘safe’. He stated that the HSE does not have a view but expects industry to take responsibility and ensure that any measures implemented are safe. He further stated that ‘the people that create the risk are best placed to manage them’. A statement that seems to fly in the face of the incidents, accidents, and Major Accidents that we have experienced in the process, chemical and petroleum industries where it was obvious that the people that created the risk were not able to manage them. There seems little doubt that the public would expect the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to have not just a view but a definite opinion.
We realise we cannot stand still. We must respond to the changing world and the demands it places on industry. The challenges are real, and new technologies and methodologies need to be developed. We must however build on the experience that has been hard won and learn from the disasters we have created.